by von
I am not going to blog about the Health Care bill. I told you my mind as we've traveled. Other than remarking that I don't think that the Democrats' bill is particularly good, there is little point in rehashing old arguments. And I have neither the heart nor the inclination to handicap. At least not tonight. I don't much care if Democrats are hurt or helped by passing this bill in the next election cycle. Nor do I have much in common with the teapartiers. They just ain't my people, y'know?
But the concept of failure -- which the Democrats dallied with for quite some time -- is an interesting one for me. So I'm going to write about that. Because there were other failures on display tonight in the NCAA tournament. Some were as meaningful as political failure.
I trust the readership to recognize that I'm not drawing parallels to any political debate. I ain't James Joyce and, in case you were confused, this blog ain't Ulysses. There is no symbolism in this post.
We do a lot to make sure that failure doesn't occur. We mitigate and mini-max. We create redundancies. We demand tolerances that are far above anything that we are likely to ever need. We put traction controls on sports cars so we don't slide too much and buy tires with more grip than we could possibly require. And then we add an airbag, a fire suppression system, and a parachute to be sure.
To be clear, I don't disagree with doing any of that.* By and large, I'm in favor of people not dying, not getting hurt, and not suffering.
But not always.
You would think, perhaps, that I'd be smarter than this, but I didn't really understand why I never liked the NBA, with its seemingly endless series of games to decide its championship, until tonight. (Bear with me; I'm still on topic.) Tonight I was watching the Purdue/Texas A&M game in the NCAA tournament. It was a great game in a tournament that is already full of great games. And I realized: A player can be worn down in a seven game series, like the NBA has to decide its championship. A player can be beaten in a seven game series. Soundly so. But a player can't fail in a seven game series. At least, a player can't fail as starkly as he can fail in the NCAA tournament, when he gets exactly one game in each round, and his team either goes to the next round or loses it all.
And the same of course holds true in the women's NCAA tournament, despite what you've been told about the UCONN Huskies ("the Huskies still tower over all else, and perhaps tower over all rivals in history," says one reporter.) Maybe even moreso for UCONN, should they lose.
The song goes: Fail with consequence, lose with eloquence, and smile. Remarkably, despite being composed by Germans, there's some truth in that line. Well, maybe not about the smiling bit. But I do think it's important to have a single chance to win or lose -- and to lose, despite your best efforts. Sometimes, at least.
Builds character, someone might say.
*Although I do require that there be an off switch for traction controls on the modern car. Sometimes, in a safe environment, I like to put a car sideways (or nearly so). If you haven't tried it, you should: being in good position to kill yourself really sharpens the mind.
But a player can't fail in a seven game series. At least, a player can't fail as starkly as he can fail in the NCAA tournament, when he gets exactly one game in each round, and his team either goes to the next round or loses it all.
If individual failure, or triumph, in a team sport is what you're looking for, try baseball.
The One True Sport invented the seven-game championship series, and the individual opportunities are, if anything, intensified in that context. (see, e.g., Bill Buckner)
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | March 21, 2010 at 11:36 PM
Yeah, sure, winners always say that. This post was a total waste of pixels.
Posted by: bobbyp | March 21, 2010 at 11:44 PM
Builds character, someone might say.
Should have been the preface to post above, but somehow disappeared....how'd that happen?
Posted by: bobbyp | March 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Yeah, sure, winners always say that. This post was a total waste of pixels.
I'm sorry about the Aggies, BobbyP. Next year.
Posted by: von | March 21, 2010 at 11:50 PM
I'm sorry about the Aggies, BobbyP. Next year.
posted by von
No need to apologize, von. I didn't watch that game. I don't care who won that game. And as a matter of principle, I never root for teams from Texas.
But if this is some kind of pean to "having the chance to win or lose", then I can only say that conservatives, in principle, assert some deserve only to win.
There's a big difference.
Posted by: bobbyp | March 22, 2010 at 12:07 AM
How the bleep does Wisconsin, one of the best scoring defenses in the country, give up almost 90 points to an Ivy League team?
Talk about failure.
Posted by: kent | March 22, 2010 at 12:27 AM
The One True Sport invented the seven-game championship series, and the individual opportunities are, if anything, intensified in that context. (see, e.g., Bill Buckner)
Why does no one remember that Boston had already blown the lead at that point?
Posted by: Mike Schilling | March 22, 2010 at 04:22 AM
The One True Sport
There are only three true sports, race car driving, boxing, and bull fighting. The rest are kids games played by adults.
And can I just say that that was perhaps the most spectacular opening NCAA weekend in recent memory, if not ever. I'm sure things will turn out allo disappointing in the end with a Mich. St., Duke, UK and Syracuse final four but man, such fun finishes.
Posted by: Ugh | March 22, 2010 at 08:56 AM
You forgot fox hunting.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 22, 2010 at 10:26 AM
Why does no one remember that Boston had already blown the lead at that point?
Because the game was tied, (two runs having already scored after two easy outs) and Buckner's error let the winning run score, and because it was the bottom of the 10th, so game over, and especially because the Mets went on to win the Series.
So minor matters like earlier failures to get the third out (and win the Series right then) are forgotten.
Actually, I do think that, of team sports, it is baseball that most consistently and intensely focuses on individual performance.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | March 22, 2010 at 10:33 AM
There are only three true sports, race car driving, boxing, and bull fighting.
There is surely no finer sight in all the world than a man facing alone half a ton of angry pot roast.
-- Tom Lehrer
Posted by: ajay | March 22, 2010 at 10:49 AM
I agree with Bernard regarding baseball's focus within the context of a team sport.
Unlike most team sports, there is rarely a diagramed play on (with the exception of the sacrifice). Nothing happens the same way twice. Nobody knows where the ball is going ahead of time. It's the individual trying to throw a 95 mph fastball past another individual who, miraculously, can hit it maybe 2.8 times out of ten.
An outfielder chasing a long line drive into the outfield gap in a close game is a lonely guy.
For Ugh ;): Eric's excellent hat is excellent on Mickey Mantle, not so much current day Yankees, with the exception of Jeter, and certainly not on Steinbrenner.
Other excellent hats include the Cardinals, the Red Sox, the Tigers, the Reds, the Giants, and the Braves.
Posted by: John Thullen | March 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM
"The song goes: Fail with consequence, lose with eloquence, and smile. Remarkably, despite being composed by Germans, there's some truth in that line."
Is that supposed to be funny? Because it comes across to me as prejudice against Germans.
Posted by: Laura | March 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Slarti: You forgot fox hunting.
Does it involve a significant risk of death for the human participant? If so, then, yes, I did forget it. Actually, I really don't care, for some reason I just like the phrase "kids games played by adults." Seems to put things in perspective sometimes.
Thullen: For Ugh ;): Eric's excellent hat is excellent on Mickey Mantle, not so much current day Yankees, with the exception of Jeter, and certainly not on Steinbrenner.
But to inspire such Seinfeld greatness?!!?
Posted by: Ugh | March 22, 2010 at 12:15 PM
If the fox hunting is done in the old way, there is indeed risk of death (or at least severe injury).
Posted by: Hartmut | March 22, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Eric's excellent hat
The excellent Yankee logo (yes, I'm a fan of the Evil Empire) was in fact designed by Tiffany.
Details from Wikipedia:
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | March 22, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Sometimes, in a safe environment, I like to put a car sideways
Get yourself an old beater MG, or a Miata, or maybe a 16v Rabbit, and go autocross.
Some folks run Neons. Some run Ford Fiestas.
It's cheap and fun. And you can probably come close enough to killing yourself to satisfy your "life on the edge" jones, if that's your thing.
No need to go pulling the traction control off of the rest of our cars. There are enough knuckleheads out there already, they don't need the encouragement.
Posted by: russell | March 22, 2010 at 12:36 PM
You want a sport? I have a sport... riding a bicycle in Toronto traffic.
But if you mean that failure should have consequences, and those consequences should include watching your kids die of something we have a treatment for, then I have only one thing to say about that which the posting rules allow: as long as we have social programs to support business owners who mess up (inter alia incorporation, limited liability), and craft guild protection for professionals (the law society, medical licensing, etc.) then working people should have the ability to afford medical treatment for themselves and their kids.
Posted by: John Spragge | March 22, 2010 at 03:35 PM
Is that supposed to be funny? Because it comes across to me as prejudice against Germans.
[Satire] Me? Prejudiced against Germans? I drive a German car, listen to German music, and have lots of German friends. I even dated a German once. So I can't possibly be prejudiced against Germans. I just don't want them swimming in my swimming-pools or marrying my sister.[/Satire]
Posted by: von | March 22, 2010 at 04:01 PM